17-55 f/2.8 or not

Good point August; Carl Zeiss was reported to have replied when someone said there was a tiny air bubble in one of his lenses, "my lenses are made to look through, not at."

It's been a hangup for some time (the dust thing).

Now that i have both the 17-55 and 24-105L i feel i didnt make a mistake getting the 17-55IS.
If im going to be inside, say at a party, museum, exhibition etc ill use the 17-55IS, if im going to be outside, say at the park with the kids, just waking around, parades etc ill use the 24-105L. but both lens's could work well the other way around. I know ive duplicated some of the functions and FL but thats what i like about them. they both do a different job but can cover most jobs.
All my at home shots are with flash but i need the extra bit at the wide end some of the time. If im outside ill use the longer reach of the 24-105L but can still get use out of the 24mm end.
I think i might use the 17-55IS more as its supposed to be a bit sharper than the 24-105L and i feel my indoor shots at f/4 need a bit more +FEC and sometimes my 420EX runs out of steam. im hoping with f/2.8 i wont need quite so much.
All IMHO

dave_bass5 wrote in post #2663948
All my at home shots are with flash but i need the extra bit at the wide end some of the time.

So, it's not so much the f/2.8 you need, but the wider lens. Right?

dave_bass5 wrote in post #2663948
I think i might use the 17-55IS more as its supposed to be a bit sharper than the 24-105L

Are you finding this to be true? Is it sharper than the 24-105?

Sorry to use you as a guinea pig, but not many people have both of these lenses!

dave_bass5 wrote in post #2663948
If im going to be inside, say at a party, museum, exhibition etc ill use the 17-55IS, if im going to be outside, say at the park with the kids, just waking around, parades etc ill use the 24-105L.

Hey, do you think this lens decision might come down to "indoors vs. outdoors"?

As in, if you mostly shoot indoors, get the 17-55. If you mostly shoot outdoors, get the 24-105. (??)

SoundsGood wrote in post #2664085
Hey, do you think this lens decision might come down to "indoors vs. outdoors"?

As in, if you mostly shoot indoors, get the 17-55. If you mostly shoot outdoors, get the 24-105. (??)

Lots of folks love WA lenses outdoors, too, for landscapes. I think the point being made is that when you are outdoors and shooting people rather than landscapes, the distances are greater than indoors, which is why the longer FL can be an advantage 'when shooting people outdoors'.

Wilt wrote in post #2664322
Lots of folks love WA lenses outdoors, too, for landscapes.

Gotcha. I don't shoot landscapes -- I'm a "people picture" guy, primarily -- so I tend to forget about the landscape angle (no pun intended ).

SoundsGood wrote in post #2664085
Hey, do you think this lens decision might come down to "indoors vs. outdoors"?

As in, if you mostly shoot indoors, get the 17-55. If you mostly shoot outdoors, get the 24-105. (??)

No becuase you can shoot in or out with either

There really is no answer to which is best unless you do just get it for a certain type of shot IMO.

I would say i do tend to use the sharper lens for indoors as im shooting close up and so i want the best detail i can get. For that the 17-50f/2.8 was and the 17-55IS is sharper than my 24-105L. only a little bit but like i have said, i can get more power out of my flash and so with more light i seem to get better exposed shots.
But 24-105L is a perfect range for me. If it was 24-105L f/2.8 then i wouldnt bother with the 17-55IS much.
Both lens's are very good and at the end fo the day you wont be dissapointed by either other than they dont both do the same thing.

I had the same dilema as you and so got both. I didnt intend to but now i have im at peace withmy self for a while.
Going to DW later this month sort of pushed me over the edge in to getting the 17-55IS now as i think it will be very usefull. if i had waited untill i got back i would have got a 70-200f/4. IS, more of the summer when im out and about and still been happy to keep my 15-50f/2.8

what is this PMA and how does this affect the decision to purchase now or wait?

it doesnt. the PMA is in march 8th through the 11th. its when canon announces any new products that its bringing out this year. This usually means a lowering in prices over time as the coming months go by for equipment being replaced. The 17-55 won't be replaced by anything anytime soon, so don't expect a price lowering. The only reason the price would lower is only if enough time goes by and it's not selling that well any more.

I haven't rigourously compared the results from the 17/55 and the 24/105, but so far I can only tell them apart by looking at the EXIF data - particularly when the focal lengths are similar.

What I'm more concerned about, and pleased about, is that the colour balance matches between lenses.

To some extent, they are obviously interchangeable, but the f/stop and sealing differences separate them more. I live in a "winter rainy" climate; the 24/105 is "shower safe". When it's dark, the 17/55 takes over - except when it's a "dark and rainy night".

personally i like the 24-105 but would like a low lite lens and considering the 35 1.4L rather than the 17-55 . i had the 17 range before and didn't use it (i guess i'm not there yet wilt )the 35 1.4L costs the same as the 17-55 and i'm more confident in build quality , am i missing something here ?
feel free to blaze me .

Both lenses are very similiar in alot of respects. However, if you do a lot of people photography, you'll see that the bokeh on the 24-105L isn't particularly pleasing. Its a bit harsh, where as I'm finding the 17-55 bokeh much better.

I've had my 17-55 f/2.8 IS for 3 weeks now and haven't knoticed this dust problem, so can't comment on that one. Also, I'm still not seeing any marked image quality differences between the 17-55 and my 24-105. If its there, then you'd definately have to pixel peep to see it. But this is with only 3 week of owning the 17-55 and no real shooting with it

I'm picking up the 17-55 tomorrow. I will later decide if I want to keep both, need to keep both, or don't need to keep both. I'm sure it will be a nice lens.....it's only money right?

thanks to all who volunteered their time in chiming in....

I feel I might be getting rid of the 24-105 and maybe replace with a 200 prime oh no, here we go again.....

I just picked up the 17-55 from a guy locally...for $850 (includes hood)....WOW....I finally see what all the people are saying about this lens. It's really a fantastic lens. It really is sharp, sharp, sharp.....

Now that I have both, personally I could see how these two can live with each other. I still haven't decided either to keep or sell the 24-105. I have the 85 f/1.8, 70-200 f/4 IS, 24-105 and now the 17-55. I'm debating of trading or selling 24-105 for the 70-200 f/2.8 (when shooting my kids sports). Though my new 70-200 f/4 IS does better than most would say.

For me personally, the two lens serves two different purpose. One for indoor and one for outdoor. So if one shoots more indoor/low light, then you should definitely get the 17-55....if you shoot outdoor/good light then the 24-105....of course there are few more considerations. But after agonizing over this decision I'm glad I got the lens...but guess what...I have another one..."should I keep the 24-105 or change it to 70-200 f/2.8"

funny it never ends sometimes.....hahaha